Resolutions from Pittsburgh Revisionists

Unless the transmission of this document by email is the culprit, which I doubt, this resolution is so in need of corrections, specifications, and references, not to mention removal of indiscriminate and unverifiable observations and deflections, that it will cause what the authors think they are reversing, namely “confusion” and “misleading.”
  And anybody with any compassion for the work and flow of the convention (so as not to get caught up and waste time in minute amendments and challenges to Whereas clauses and questionable rationale statements), will get up to move the resolution be referred to some other committee, or back to a committee on resolutions and amendments, especially, to get it all straightened out.  Or better yet, a long list of all the above problems with the resolution is made into a litany for the first person at the microphone for debate to inform the convened delegates, and then followed up by another speaker in the discussion who would “Call the Question.”  Given the tenor of the Pittsburgh convention I would wager a quick end of discussion, and then a firm vote to defeat the resolution.  End of story.

test

Rob+
You are right.  It will be defeated very quickly and I think the proposers know that.  I think their motive in proposing this is to have a record (by roll call vote) of all those who voted against it for future litigation and clergy presentments for Abandonment of Communion.  The PEPsters are a mean and vindictive group—no negotiations, no surrender, no grace.  It’s my way or the highway with them. 
David+

All women. Hmph. Oh, and make sure everyone knows we have a PHD. Therefore I’m smaht.
AP+

Executive Council passed its statement on the unconstitutionality of the 2004 Pittsburgh amendment

Unconstitutionality???? When did the Executive Council become a Supreme Court of TEC? Is that part of the polity?

Rocks,

That’s a good point.  I thought only the General Convention could speak for the General Convention Church and make decisions that were binding from sea to shining sea.

So much for WO and Bishop Duncan’s championing of it.  With certain honorable exceptions, it appears the vast majority of females ordained in TEC are rampant revisionists.  How do I prove that?  I can’t other than to say that has been my experience as one who has been following church matters for the past several years.

I’ll agree with you Evan.  We had the first woman rector in Tennessee back in 1984 and in my 25 years’ experience, every woman priest I ever met was either a “rampant revisionist” or sadly, ended up becoming one.

For the record, Stand Firm has 4 quite orthodox women priests on ts board, and a few more among its inner circle of supporters.

Evan,
I think we need to face the fact that the “vast majority” of all clergy to come out of TEC seminaries in the last 30 years are “rampant revisionists”  regardless of gender.  The recent statement of the clergy of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in support of Bishop Duncan and orthodox doctrine included the signatures of a number of women- so I think it is mistaken to make assumptions based on gender.  And although I am personally of two minds over women’s ordination myself, I would certainly prefer the pastoral ministry of +Geralyn Wolf over that of Robinson, Chane, Bruno, Warner (or my own bishop- Gepert).

There are sound arguments to be made against women’s ordination based on tradition and Scripture. But let us not base our positions on the signatures of 4 women on a proposal we oppose.  You could likewise make the argument that since Spong, Pike, Chane and Robinson are men, we should never ordain another man.
TJ

TJ,
I oppose WO on the basis of tradition and Scripture.  I would say that the fact that most ordained women in TEC are revisionists is a judgment on the church for its unscriptural pursuit of WO.

Greg,

That’s great.  Sor are, if I counted correctly, six of the signatories to the letter from the Clergy of the Dio. of Pittsburgh.  That doesn’t change my conclusion, however.

Evangelical women clergy are the pariahs of the Episcopal Church., make no mistake about it.  TEC is not “inclusive” of women as a gender, don’t buy it for a moment.  They are inclusive of their agenda-driven politics masquerading as theology and if you are a woman clergy evangelical, you might as well just forget about it.  You aren’t just shunned, you’re put out in the cold with no blanket. 

It takes some of our women ministry leaders a long time sometimes before they realize that the conversation halts when they walk in the room.  I saw that very thing happen at Diocesan Council and it happened so much the evangelical women just stopped going to the Women Clergy Breakfast, it was such a joke.  What the women in the Diocese of Virginia were doing is voting as a block and if you were an evangelical women clergy and didn’t go along, well, you might as well be selling tomatoes on the side of the road.  And it’s not pretty to watch, no, it is not. I watched it up close and personal in the Diocese of Virginia and as someone who supports men and women leaders in the church (priesthood of all believers) it is appalling how the Insiders Club Doors Close.  No one should be fooled and Evangelical Women Need Not Apply.  It is Borg Time.  It is a Collective.  Resistance is futile.  Make no mistake about it.

When a “theology” is based on self-actualization rights and not on sacrificial scripture, then it means disaster for ministry.  it begets personality cults (which of course, transcends politics - left and right).  Leadership is not about rights, it’s about service, it’s about giving up one’s rights and picking up the cross and following Jesus. 

That is the antipathy of what the institutional General Convention church marks as its own.  What the GC church raises up are men and women in need of asserting their individual Me-ness.  This is not about mutual submission, but mutual destruction.

Which again is why the partnership between evangelicals and Anglo Catholics is such a miracle.  We have differences, but what unites us is far deeper for women who are called to ministry leadership respond as Jesus would, even if it means dying to self.  Even if it means taking the collar off for a while or forever.  It’s not about asserting rights, but about redemption.  God is in the business of raising up from the ashes what has been smashed into dust, including the service of women leaders in ministry (ordained or lay).  But we don’t find reconciliation and recovery by smashing others over the head - and this rage is so strong in The Episcopal Church.  We have a generation of Walking Wounded who think that because TEC ordains women, it is a safe place for women leaders to assert their Me-ness.  It is not.  No, it is not.

What makes a community safe is one where we know we are sinners redeemed not by our own sacrifices and work, but by the sacrifice and work of Jesus on the cross. It is transparent.  It is at the foot of the cross that we find redemption and salvation and reconciliation - and that is where evangelicals and Anglo Catholics find themselves, a very surprising community who - having been forgiven so much, love so deep. 

This resolution put forward by these revisionists in Pittsburgh are from Bubble Dwellers, whatever their gender may be.  There is no freedom in a Bubble.  There is only goo.

bb

Baby Blue, You give me back my sense of pride in being female!  So many soundings off of the the revisionist females, from the PB on down, make me want to crawl back under my rock and stay there from very shame of sharing their same gender.  God bless you and all the other Evangelical females in ministry, both ordained and lay; I am proud to be among your number.  Frances Scott

Anybody got a Word Document version of PEP’s amendment so we can check revision history?

Actually, it’s interesting, and I’ve noticed it throughout ECUSA—but the orthodox female clergy who are leaders have been brought together with other orthodox laity and clergy who are opposed to WO.  Why is this?  Because when the bombs are whistling over head, I am more than happy to share my foxhole with a person who’s fighting with me and on my team. 

I remain adamantly opposed to WO based on scripture.  But I’ll work with an Anne Kennedy and [insert names of my female clergy friends here] any day of the week, and be proud of our alliance.

Give me an Anne Kennedy over Bennison, Chane, Smith, Griswold, Beers, Sauls, Parsley, Howard, O’Neal, Andrus, Curry, Bruno . . . any day.

I should also add that it’s the female clergy who oppose the foaming-at-the-mouth revisionist female clergy who have earned the greatest <i>seething resentment and Gollum-like viciousness from those same people<i>.  The revisionists recognize repudiation of their vision and gospel by those whom they believe that they should own anyway.

I can appreciate your sympathies Sarah, but there is no orthodox- big or little “O”- who believes in the ordained women. I would much prefer an Ann Kennedy   over Bennison, Chane, Smith, Griswold, Beers, Sauls, Parsley, Howard, O’Neal, Andrus, Curry, Bruno . . . any day also. But my preferences have nothing whatever to do with it.

Well, the founder of “Progressive Episcopalians in Virginia” once called me a “radical” at Diocesan Council.  That was memorable.

bb

Sarah Hey, Thanks for that last!

I’m in a seminary that welcomes women’s ministry at all levels, and honors the contributions of such saints as Macrina and Catharine Booth.  I still have some unanswered contextual questions about women in teaching leadership, but recognise that when Baruch was (apparently) the best man God could find for the job He put Deborah in as judge, and she did great.  God uses whom He will for the crisis (“for such a time as this,” Esther!), and with all the crises the Church is facing this afternoon, I’d say she’ll welcome all the help she can get!

As far as the sense of this article goes, while I’m not sure I would recognise a diocesan canon if I saw one, I have to wonder:  With the age-old boast of the Episcopal Church in “Unity in diversity,”  how consistent is the idea of a diocese having had a constitution since Day One that mandated a lock-step conformity to the national office?

Robert

RE: “I can appreciate your sympathies Sarah, but there is no orthodox- big or little “O”- who believes in the ordained women.”

Actually, then, there is no “orthodox” at all who exist in this world, since I believe that, being fallen, all of us are riddled with unknown heresy.

Further, there are [from the Roman Catholic and sacramental perspective] no such people as “ordained” females either.

If you like you are welcome to substitute some other acceptable adjectival modifier in front of the word “female”.  ; > )

And you are welcome to say “purportedly in orders” as well.  It makes no odds to me, since my point still stands.

RE: “But my preferences have nothing whatever to do with it.”

But mine do, since I was expressing precisely with whom I would be in alliance and against whom I would be opposing.

So my preferences for with whom I will be and am allying have everything to do with it, since I, in fact, am talking about me.

Please note that I did not state that my preferences had to do with WO [recall that I am opposed to WO], but my preferences most certainly do have to do with those with whom I choose to be in alliance.

Now. 

Don’t you think that was an awfully pedantic thing you ended up starting?

The sentence, as it may be revised in your own mind, could now be: “Actually, it’s interesting, and I’ve noticed it throughout ECUSA—but the [conservative/traditional-except-about-WO, purported-to-be-ordained female purported-to-be-clergy] who are leaders have been brought together with other orthodox laity and clergy who are opposed to WO.”

Hope this is now clear for you.  ; > )

Now I’m confused….

Heh.

“Silence, Rocks!!!!”  ; > )

[just kidding]

The Rocks will cry out?

I must say you nailed it. ” The sentence, as it may be revised in your own mind, could now be: “Actually, it’s interesting, and I’ve noticed it throughout ECUSA—but the [conservative/traditional-except-about-WO, purported-to-be-ordained female purported-to-be-clergy] who are leaders have been brought together with other orthodox laity and clergy who are opposed to WO.”
For a time, and for a season.

RE: “I must say you nailed it.”

Yep.  It’s pretty much of a yawner for most SF commenters here . . . we all already know it and I have little doubt that, knowing it, none of the women on our side are insulted by my pedantic revised sentence, but rather do a little giggling—as well they should—since they neither share my theology about it, nor yours.  And of course, folks like me are unconcerned as well.

I’ll be continuing to use the shorthand.

RE: “For a time, and for a season.”

So you hope.  But I’ve already made my prediction about that, and I’m pretty confident in it.  ; > )

All,

We’re now off-topic from the thread, which is not about WO, either its rightness or its wrongness.  Not directed at any one person, since all of us have contributed, but please make certain to comment about the post itself.

Thanks.

bb

Mary,

Yours, on 09-12-2007 at 10:21 AM, is a great sermon, it is a shame that it will never be ‘preached’ outside of this arena, and we are all believers!

Chip+

At least six members of Executive Council trained in the law ...

OK, the General Convention Church has six members out of 33 (?) who are lawyers (or wannabe lawyers).  That’s 18%, or well over twenty times the proportion in the general population.  And we wonder why our beloved church is on the brink of catastrophe…

[err, umm, sorry, Brad, just kidding, ahh…]

... six members <u>on the Executive Council</u>, that is.  I don’t expect the entire Church to be down to six members much before, say, Lambeth 2028…

Whereas, I had to run into work late tonight to start a engineering simulation, and

whereas, my eyes glazed over frequently in English classes in high school, and

whereas, I was more interested in math and science, and

whereas, I concentrated my education towards becoming an engineer, and

whereas, I still have to work late, and

whereas, my mispent time in hs english class makes my eyes glaze over when I read high-handed statements like this from the Episcoleft, and

whereas, I’m asking myself how the heck this thread got on WO, which as I understand it is a semi-verboten subject on SF anyhow, and

whereas, I’m rambling, and

whereas I’m reminded of the Sunday School teacher who asked her class ‘what’s small and has a fluffy tail and scurries up trees?,’ and the class brown-nose answered ‘Our Lord!’, and

whereas we found out today that Mootette’s sibling will be out and about in about eight months, and

whereas I still can’t think of anything meaningful to say about the above Episcoleft statement that made my eyes glaze over in the first place, and

whereas the reader is wondering ‘how long is he going spin this shaggy-dog?,’ and

whereas I myself am also wondering how long I can milk this

be it resolved that this ending doesn’t even merit a whimper, much less a bang, much less a high-handed rationelle.

Congrats, Moot on the additional Mootling.

We L2 second and third GillianC’s:  Congrats, Moot on the additional Mootling.